Check out this very interesting interview with the Syrian ambassador Imad Moustapha at Foreign Policy magazine.

He says clearly that the US raid into Syria was a "criminal, terrorist act", that it was done for reasons of US politics, that it blind-sided State who he had been negotiating with...and that Joe Lieberman personally assured him that McCain will negotiate with Syria if he wins.

Foreign Policy: The United States claims its Sunday night raid was undertaken to stem the flow of militants into Iraq. Why do you think this raid happened?

Imad Moustapha: Do we know why? Of course not. The only analysis we have is that they are doing this for pure domestic political reasons that have everything to do with the elections and the electoral campaign. They want to come out with a story.

But we are still waiting for the U.S. administration to come out and tell the American people: “We killed [Abu Ghadiya], and here is the proof that we killed him.” We have presented our side of the story. We have published the photos of the eight people that were killed, their names, and what they were doing. This is our side of the story. Let the United States come with its side.

... Suddenly, after everybody has recognized that the situation has improved dramatically in Iraq, [the United States] comes and they attack a village in Syria. They coldbloodedly murder eight Syrian civilians, villagers who are totally defenseless, totally innocent. This is a terrorist, criminal act.

The implication here is that the Bush administration wanted to boost McCain's standing in the poills with a little shock and awe and, since Iraq just doesn't provide the requisite level of fearmongering any more and attacking Iran would be too big a can of worms to open, they decided to launch a raid into the weaker neighbour.

Continue reading »

The Russians aren't fooled by continual protestations that America's missile defense plans are aimed at "rogue states" - none of whom yet has the capability of throwing a nuke at the U.S. and who probably would choose infiltration as a delivery method in any case. They've been beefing up their missile force, introducing a new mark and modifying existing missile types with decoys, in the face of American righwing zeal for destabilizing the balance of deterrence that has served the world so well for decades.

That's not surprising. I'm sure that Russian intelligence and military planners can read, and surf the sites of those rightwing think-tanks who have provided the intellectual impetus for the Bush administration, Mccain and others. They know that missile defense, despite the spin of the Bush administration, has always been about the Soviet Union, and then Russia. It's all about Reagan's Star Wars dream, which had as its focus the "Evil Empire" still described in such belligerent terms by John McCain.

For instance, they'll have already noticed that the Heritage Foundation is planning a major publicity push on missile defense in January, planning to pressure President Obama to continue funding the multi-billion program.

The wingnut think-tank will be releasing a documentary, called 33 Minutes, and is already boosting it on its own website. The fearmongering blurb for the film says:

A ballistic missile from a foreign enemy would take 33 minutes to reach the United States. With each passing day, this becomes a growing danger to America, yet our government has failed to build the missile defense systems capable of defending us against such attacks.

Our enemies are attempting to stockpile arsenals that threaten our freedom and prosperity. North Korea and Iran are the most prominent, but this also includes Russia, China and other nations that have missiles capable of killing Americans in very large numbers and threatening our allies.

The time has come to revive the strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain, and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world's security.

This documentary aims to do just that by highlighting the disastrous consequences of a nuclear explosion on American soil - one that could happen in just 33 minutes.

Continue reading »

(VOAvideo of US, Poland Sign Missile Defense Deal)

American plans for missile defense bases in bordering nations infuriate Russia, and the US has had to bend over backwards to push through the Polish and Czech sites over the objections of those nation's populace - even going so far as to offer Poland US troops and air-defense missiles on their border with Russia. But why is the Bush administration pushing so hard for a defense against a so-far entirely hypothetical threat from Iran and to have bases for missiles that don't work?

Phil Coyle, the Pentagon's former top weapons tester (.pdf), says it's all for nothing. "The system proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic doesn't exist, has never been tested, and has no demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or the U.S. under realistic operational conditions," Coyle contends in an exclusive conversation with DANGER ROOM.

He says that even our existing missile defenses, installed in Alaska, couldn't stop more than one or two rudimentary missiles from, say, Iran. "For these reasons the U.S. BMD system proposed for Europe is causing strife with Russia for nothing."

Well, not exactly for nothing.

Continue reading »

  The Guardian UK: (h/t Gregory)

British troops could remain in Afghanistan for more than the 38 years it took them to pull out of Northern Ireland. That is the bleak assessment by Army commanders on the ground in Helmand province.

In an interview with The Observer at HQ in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, Brigadier John Lorimer, commander of UK forces in Helmand, said: 'If you look at the insurgency then it could take maybe 10 years. Counter-narcotics, it's 30 years. If you're looking at governance and so on, it looks a little longer. If you look at other counter-insurgency operations over the last 100 years then it has taken time.'

His scenario is the starkest assessment yet from a senior officer tasked with defeating the Taliban, tackling the heroin trade and rebuilding the war-ravaged country. Last week troops pulled out of Northern Ireland after 38 years, the longest operation in UK military history. Afghanistan, commanders fear, may take longer.[..]

Scores of soldiers have succumbed to heatstroke while hundreds have battled on despite dehabilitating illness. Almost 50 out of 160 forward troops reported severe sickness and diarrhoea in the forward base at Sangin last month. A number of troops have lost limbs during firefights in the upper Gereshk valley, south of Sangin.

I can't imagine anyone involved--the Americans, NATO, the Brits or most of all, the Afghanis--being okay with this lasting that long.

Wow, talk about Bush really losing his base.

The Agonist:

While I'm sure it's a lot more complicated, and perhaps others with more foreign policy/Middle East expertise than me can comment, I noted two related stories this morn, one in the NYT and one in WaPo that I think are big time indicators with big time negative repercussions for BushCo. In the NYT, we learn Saudi King Abdullah has publicly condemned the US occupation of Iraq in this story.

``In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war,'' he (Abdullah) added.

Jim Hoagland's column in WaPo says Abdullah cancelled a state dinner to be held in his honor at the White House in April. [..]

Oh yeah. Hoagland notes Bush BFF King Abdullah of Jordan also cancelled a state dinner visit slated for September. An emerging pattern it would seem.
Cernig at NewsHog has more

Reuters:

U.S. troops detained on Friday the eldest son of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite leaders, outraging Shi'ite politicians and prompting a swift apology from the U.S. ambassador.

Ammar al-Hakim's convoy was stopped at a border checkpoint in eastern Wasit province as he returned from Iran, Iraqi officials said. The young cleric, who was taken to a nearby U.S. military base, said he was handcuffed and blindfolded.

He was released on Friday evening after being held for most of the day, Iraqi officials said. One official said the soldiers had removed his cleric's black turban, an act Shi'ites would view as deeply insulting.

[..]The incident could strain the previously good relations between Washington and Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the dominant political party in the Shi'ite-led government.

Washington has courted the elder Hakim in its efforts to stabilize Iraq and create a moderate Shi'ite bulwark against the growing influence of radical anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The elder Hakim held talks with President Bush in Washington in December.

Though officials swear that the younger Hakim was not singled out, this is not the first run-in the Hakims have had with military justice. In January, the military stormed into Hakim's complex and arrested six Iranians, all of whom have since been released.

This is how crazy things are. Watching America linked to this op ed in The Standard that literally recommends a cup of coffee and an aspirin to try to figure out exactly who are our enemies and our allies:

Continue reading »

Gareth Porter discusses Obama's possible Iran options with The Real News Network.

Veteran IPS investigative reporter Gareth Porter recently spent 12 days in Iran, interviewing Iranian leadership figures. He discussed with them their expectations of the Obama administration, the geopolitical situation in the region and their own hopes for Iran. Gareth has written a series of articles for IPS exploring his findings, but I also got a chance to ask him some questions in amongst his busy schedule. Perhaps the most important impressions he came away from Iran with are that most people there truly believe that their nation's nuclear program is a peaceful one and that "the Iranian leadership is prepared to enter into full-scale serious negotiations on the full range of issues with the United States, provided that it gets signals from the Obama administration that it intends to break with key elements of the Bush administration’s policy."

Here is that interview, in full.

Cernig: We often hear that the Iranian people love America even if their rulers do not. Does your experience agree with this?

Gareth Porter: Certainly people in Tehran are very friendly to Americans on a personal level. I think the viewpoint about “America” is much more variegated, however, depending on political views about both domestic politics in Iran and U.S. policy.

C: We also hear that Iran's rulers use opposition to America and the West as a patriotic lever to stay in power. Is this true, and how does the Bush administration's policy affect Iranian feelings about their leaders?

GP: There is no doubt that President Ahmadinejad has exploited nationalism and popular perceptions of U.S. and Western aggressiveness toward Iran – especially over the nuclear issue – as part of his appeal to his base of practicing Muslims in smaller cities and in the rural areas. That appeal does not work very well in Tehran and other larger cities, however. As for the Islamic regime more generally, I do not have the impression that it depends on hostility toward the West to remain in power. Certainly there have been times (e.g., the early to mid-1990s) when the regime was consciously seeking to improve relations with the West over a considerable period of time, and that strategy was evidently adopted in the belief that the economic benefits of a reduction in tensions would benefit the regime rather than harm it.

C:

Continue reading »

While the presidential candidates try to outdo each other on hawkishness on their Afghanistan/Pakistan policies and violence rises even further, the military seem to be the ones really running U.S. foreign policy in the region. And they're looking for a Grand Bargain.

This week's Sixty Minutes has eye-opening footage from a forward operating base in eastern Afghanistan, which includes up-close combat with Taliban militants.

Watch CBS Videos Online

The footage underscores what a recent draft of a National Intelligence Estimate called Afghanistan's "downward spiral", with a 30 percent increase in attacks in the last year.

These soldiers had not come this close to their enemy in Afghanistan before - close enough to lob hand grenades. Staff Sgt. Jake Schlereth had to crawl into a cornfield in pursuit. "You couldn't see [the enemy]…and…I had to get down on the ground and look and see if they were down there…you knew they were in there," he tells Logan.

At least twelve enemy fighters were killed in the skirmish and one U.S. soldier was wounded. The soldiers found a camera left behind by the enemy that contained images of at least 50 heavily armed fighters, showing details of their training and actual attacks. But it also showed enemy surveillance of U.S. soldiers on patrol. Says Capt. Thomas Kilbride, who leads such patrols, "This is showing a [U.S.] unit driving. I don't know if this is us or not." Does he think he and his men are being watched every time they go on patrol? "Oh, yeah," he says.

The images on the camera prove the enemy is better armed and organized. One of the men killed was carrying an identification card issued across the border in Pakistan. The U.S. military plans more fighting ahead in the winter months, when violence is usually less. "I'm here to predict this winter will be the most violent winter so far," says Gen. Schlosser.

Continue reading »

  Guardian UK:

British troops began pulling out of Basra Palace last night, and expect to hand control of the base to Iraqi forces in the next few days, amid new Anglo-American recriminations about the aftermath of the Iraq war.

The UK battlegroup in Saddam Hussein's former compound comprises about 500 troops and their redeployment to the city's airbase is the penultimate stage of Britain's presence in the country. They began withdrawing last night in an operation which might last several days, the Ministry of Defence said.[..]

Transatlantic strains over Iraq continued at the weekend with an attack on the US from a second retired British general. Major General Tim Cross, the deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, denounced Washington's postwar policy as "fatally flawed". He insisted he had raised serious concerns about the country sliding into chaos with Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary at the time, but he had "dismissed" the warnings.

"The US had already convinced themselves that Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy," he told the Sunday Mirror. "Anybody who tried to tell them anything that challenged that idea - they simply shut it out."

On Friday Major General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army in 2003, called the American approach "intellectually bankrupt". Sir Mike also singled out Mr Rumsfeld for criticism, saying his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" was "nonsensical".